Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10

Author Topic: Sedevacantism and Vatican I  (Read 2270 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Online DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I
« Reply #5 on: July 08, 2026, 07:23:52 AM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on July 07, 2026, 07:55:12 PM
So .. we have no time for such tardery.

Perpetual Succession does not mean that there has to be a Pope on the See at all times.  So if you say there's such a thing as interregna, you're anathema?

Get lost, educate yourself some, and then come back before wasting more of our time.

If you want to present evidence about why this LENGTH of vacancy violates perpetual successors, where as 10 years doesn't, or 7 years 25 days, 15 hours, and 3 minutes does not ... please present it, but just pasting in an out-of-context dogmatic definition like some kind of Prot ("call no man father"), it's a waste of time and proves nothing.

I read the original post, closer than you did I guess. 

As the man noted, he asked a question.

I see your brief absence didn't work much of a sea change. It must have been with you seated by a sprinkler. 

Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I
« Reply #6 on: July 08, 2026, 11:09:57 AM »
Quote from: DecemRationis on July 08, 2026, 07:23:52 AM
I read the original post, closer than you did I guess.

As the man noted, he asked a question.

I see your brief absence didn't work much of a sea change. It must have been with you seated by a sprinkler.

He wasn't asking a question ... he bolded anathema, with a challenge "how does a sede answer ...".

You're pretty dense if you interpret this as an actual seeking of information.

"How does [...] explain ... ?" with anathema bolded isn't the tone you take if you're asking a question, and "sede" is invariably a derogatory appellation, where someone simply asking a question would use "sedevacantist".

This poster isn't a neophyte, a Trad since 2022, and on this forum for 8 or 9 months now, and has a history of making assertions.

I think that you're posterior-hurt after I denounced your declartion of heresy that justification occurs by faith alone ... and where Baptism isn't a cause but necessary subsequent confirmation.
Logged

Offline Bonafidecat

Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I
« Reply #7 on: July 08, 2026, 11:43:31 AM »
It was absolutely an honest question.  You should spend some time in the confessional.  I asked the question because I saw a Catholic apologist use that Vatican I quote as part of his refutation of sedevacantism.  I'm not well versed in the sede position to be able to have responded intelligently.  
Logged

Online DecemRationis

  • Supporter
Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I
« Reply #8 on: July 08, 2026, 12:30:41 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on July 08, 2026, 11:09:57 AM
He wasn't asking a question ... he bolded anathema, with a challenge "how does a sede answer ...".

You're pretty dense if you interpret this as an actual seeking of information.

"How does [...] explain ... ?" with anathema bolded isn't the tone you take if you're asking a question, and "sede" is invariably a derogatory appellation, where someone simply asking a question would use "sedevacantist".

This poster isn't a neophyte, a Trad since 2022, and on this forum for 8 or 9 months now, and has a history of making assertions.

I think that you're posterior-hurt after I denounced your declartion of heresy that justification occurs by faith alone ... and where Baptism isn't a cause but necessary subsequent confirmation.

Right . . . anything but acknowledge your crass misjudgment and offensive assumptions. Your crystal ball into souls needs some Windex and someone stronger and more honest than you to clean it. 

I expected no less, but hoped for more.
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Sedevacantism and Vatican I
« Reply #9 on: July 08, 2026, 12:50:05 PM »
Quote from: Quo vadis Domine on July 07, 2026, 06:10:54 PM

No one who holds the sedevacantist position denies that dogma. The solution to the apparent contradiction is that we hold that the Holy See is in an extended state of sedevacante. Most hold that when Pope Pius XII died in 1958 the Holy See became vacant. Obviously, every time after a pope dies there is a period when there is no pope and thus the whole world is sedevacantist. It stands to reason that because, at that time, there is no pope, those who recognize that fact don’t deny the dogma of perpetual succession.

Just because this is a much longer than an ordinary state of sedevacante, does not mean that we deny that dogma.
But at what point / how many years will it take for this idea to fail? So far it's almost 68 years since Pope Pius XII died. Compare that to the previous longest papal interregnum in history that lasted for just under 3 years (1,006 days) from the death of pope Clement IV until the election of Pope Gregory X on September 1, 1271.

I mean, for example, Richard Ibranyi is a sede who insists that there have been No popes or cardinals since Innocent II in 1130, almost 900 years - so far. We can say the guy is ridiculous, but so far we're supposedly going on 3 generations without a pope? When compared to the previous longest interregnum, 68 years (and counting) seems pretty ridiculous too, it just does.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
« previous next »